Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How did the Aborigines get to Australia?
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(7)
Message 4 of 226 (645805)
12-30-2011 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Portillo
12-29-2011 9:05 PM


Biogeography
Because wallabies are useless at building boats?
Seriously, there are hundreds of species of marsupial in Australasia, along with an extensive fossil record. There are no marsupials in the Middle East. Disagree? Please show me the fossil evidence for Asian wallabies. Even suggesting that marsupials came from Asia in a big boat is simply childish and silly.
Have you heard of the Wallace Line? It's a notional line drawn through Indonesia. On the Asian side of the line we see Asian wildlife. On the Australian side of the line, with very few exceptions (crab-eating macaques and some species of bat), we see Australasian wildlife. This is a fantastic example of what's called biogeography; the study of the distribution of living things. Biogeography provides some of the very best evidence for the ToE and the differences between Australian and Asian organisms is a good example.
It's not just a question of Noah dropping off a few kangaroos, it's more a question of entire ecosystems evolving in concert, over hundreds of thousands of years. It's a question of the Australian fossil record, which goes completely against your rather naive Bible stories.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Portillo, posted 12-29-2011 9:05 PM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Portillo, posted 01-01-2012 12:52 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 26 of 226 (645974)
01-01-2012 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Portillo
01-01-2012 12:52 AM


Re: Biogeography
Portillo buddy, that is the evidence that proves you wrong.
1) It is not a wallaby.
2) It dates back to when there was a land connection between Australia and Asia - 125 million years ago. That is before humanity even existed.
3) The first actual kangaroo fossils known are still 25 million years old; again, older than humanity. This demonstrates that Macropods were evolving in Australia way before any humans arrived. Even if we only take the dating as relative, this still falsifies your little fable.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Portillo, posted 01-01-2012 12:52 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 31 of 226 (646049)
01-02-2012 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
01-02-2012 8:46 AM


Re: Gondwandaland, Wallace and biogeography
Hi Zen Deist,
There was no land bridge between Asia and Australia.
No, not directly, but that wasn't quite what I had in mind when I first brought this up.
There was no direct link between what we now call Asia and what we now call Australia, but there was, at one point, an more-or-less overland connection, via Gondwana. The marsupials took the looooong way around.
What matters for the purpose of this discussion is that the Marsupials appear to have originated in Laurasia, possibly in what is now China. They spread into Gondwana via what is now North America. They then moved into South America and then Antarctica and eventually Australia. As those three continents drifted apart, their marsupial populations became isolated from one another.
The following image, based on marsupial genome research, gives some idea of the route taken;
The only part of this marathon journey that wasn't directly overland was the bit between North and South America, but this was only a very short distance, with an archipelago of islands linking the two, so it's not a stretch to imagine how this might have happened, most likely via small-scale rafting.
This image shows how the modern continents made up Gondwana (along with some of the fossils that provide us with evidence for their positions).
As Antarctica moved South, the marsupials died out, because it became too cold. They died out in Eurasia too, likely from competition with placental mammals. In South America and Australasia though, they persisted. Most of the South American marsupials died out when the land bridge formed between the Americas; this also explains how the marsupial Virginia Possum got where it did. But the Australasian species, with no pesky placentals to compete with, thrived and diverged. These ancestral populations eventually evolved into the wallabies and kangaroos that have been perplexing Portillo.
The ironic thing about this epic migration of land and species is that Australia has now moved far enough north that the marsupials are right on the edge of Asia; very nearly back where they began.
I know that you know this already, I just want to make the position clear for other readers.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2012 8:46 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2012 2:16 PM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(5)
Message 54 of 226 (646316)
01-04-2012 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Portillo
01-04-2012 5:17 AM


Public vs Scientific Controversy
Thats the end of that debate then. Thanks for clearing that up.
I can sympathise with you on that score, but the truth of the matter is that the debate amongst scientists has ended. All of the things we've touched on in this thread - evolution, common ancestry, human and animal migration, plate tectonics - they've been an accepted part of the scientific consensus for a long time now. The scientific controversy is over, bar a tiny handful of religiously motivated stuck-in-the-muds who stubbornly hang onto creationism.
The problem is that public opinion (especially in the US) hasn't caught up. Amongst the public, there are still significant numbers who favour some sort of creationism, ranging from full-on Biblical (or Koranic) literalism to theistic evolution. The position of actual scientists is often not well understood. This is compounded by the nasty habit of creationists to meddle in matters of science education.
The bottom line is that the public controversy will continue until the public finally catch up and get in line with what the experts are telling us. This forum is very much aimed at that public debate, rather than any kind of professional audience.
By the way, how do you feel about the model for marsupial evolution and migration that has been presented so far? Do you still have problems with it? If so, what is troubling you?
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Portillo, posted 01-04-2012 5:17 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Portillo, posted 01-11-2012 3:57 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 72 of 226 (647776)
01-11-2012 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Portillo
01-11-2012 3:57 AM


Re: Public vs Scientific Controversy
Hi Portillo,
Why then do people prefer to chat here rather than on an evolution forum? Seems like there would be alot less stress in your life if you didnt have to deal with creation.
Perhaps, but also a lot less fun.
What draws most of us here is a love of adversarial debates. That naturally requires that two parties take differing views. Without anyone to have a good old knock down argument with I'd be bored!
There is also the fact that however settled the issue of evolution might be amongst scientists, there is still a controversy amongst the public. Clearly more has to be done to win that argument. I get annoyed when I see creationists trying to persuade schools to teach wrong-headed nonsense. I get annoyed when I see scientists coming under attack just for doing their jobs. I get annoyed when I see religion trying to insinuate itself into the scientific arena. For all these reasons I feel that it's necessary to oppose creationism.
Unless of course this place is a creationist rehabilitation center.
I think that there's an element of that for many of us. You have to realise that from our perspective, creationism is a false teaching. And who are the main victims of this falsehood? Creationists themselves, who have been duped into putting a lot of effort and importance into nonsense. I think that it's unfair to the ordinary creationists. You deserve better than to be lied to by the religious leaders who you trusted. Someone has to tell you guys the truth sooner or later. Sorry if this sounds patronising, but there it is.
It seems like there is an agreement that the marsupials got to Australia from other countries.
Not really. I am proposing that marsupials reached Australia by migrating across continents that have long since fragmented. You seem to think that they were dropped off in a boat or something. I still think that we're very far apart.
Can I ask you what exactly you find unconvincing about the scenario I've outlined?
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Portillo, posted 01-11-2012 3:57 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 01-11-2012 9:21 AM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 77 by Portillo, posted 01-13-2012 3:58 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 74 of 226 (647781)
01-11-2012 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Percy
01-11-2012 9:21 AM


Re: Public vs Scientific Controversy
Hi Percy,,
The modern Australian marsupials are all native to Australia, yes. I was talking about the original marsupials, as I outlined in Message 31. The first known marsupials lived in what is now China.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 01-11-2012 9:21 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Percy, posted 01-11-2012 10:16 AM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 85 of 226 (648099)
01-13-2012 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Portillo
01-13-2012 3:58 AM


Re: Public vs Scientific Controversy
Hi Portillo,
One misconception is that the only people who doubt evolution are fundies from Alabama.
Not a misconception that I hold, nor have I ever implied such.
You cite various articles and the only ones to cite actual data show that I was correct; creationism is stronger in America than in Britain or Switzerland.
Of course, that's not the point of this thread. This thread is about how the inhabitants of Australia got where they did. Do you plan to address that any further?
Do you plan to tell us what problems you might have with the position I've outlined?
Do you plan to cite any evidence for any Biblical version?
Do you plan to address the topic at all?
If so, the please go ahead and tell us what you think about marsupials, humans and Australia. If not, quit picking holes in irrelevant side issues. Address the topic! Put up or shut up!
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Portillo, posted 01-13-2012 3:58 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 87 of 226 (648101)
01-13-2012 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Chuck77
01-13-2012 6:50 AM


Hi Chuck,
Opps. Nice rebuttle. Insults as usual. Doesn't cut it Doc. You really are sloppy here. Stick to the political threads.
Are you taking the piss? Your evidential contribution to this thread has been precisely zero. If you were willing to address the topic with reasoned debate and evidence, then it might be appropriate for you to chide others in this way. As it is, you have added no reasoned debate to this thread, you have brought no evidence to this thread, you have made only the most half-hearted assertion, and even that you only managed to fit in after you had taken a childish pot-shot at Dr A.
I say the same to you as I did to Portillo; put up or shut up. Address the topic with reasoned argument and evidence or go away.
It's pretty simple. After the flood the continents split and whatever animals where on certain continents ended up there. Easy.
Yeah. Easy-peasy. Apart form the fact that there were no humans before the breakup of Pangea, nor many of the other animals mentioned in the Bible. Your charming little theory - for which, I notice, you provide absolutely no evidence - already stands falsified.
Evolutionist can't buy that but can buy everything poofed into existance by accident accompanied by chance and evolved into the miraculous life we see today, but can't buy this.
Your phrase "accident accompanied by chance", apart form being a tautology, is not an accurate summation of the ToE. It is yet another moronic creationist strawman.
It's a mystery the things they can buy.
No mystery. You don't understand the theory, you made up some nonsense and it was nonsensical, due to your lack of understanding. Pretty much par for the course really.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Chuck77, posted 01-13-2012 6:50 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 90 of 226 (648268)
01-14-2012 7:22 AM


Chuck's CMI Lies
Chuck asked me to bring this drivel over to this thread, so here it is. Let's take a look.
CMI writes:
After the Flood, the marsupials left the Ark and dispersed around the world.
Evidence for the ark?
CMI writes:
They could have dispersed before many of the other mammalian varieties.
Why? How?
CMI writes:
As ocean levels rose at the end of the Ice Age, land bridges were eliminated and the migrant marsupials were stuck where they were.
What land bridges? Care to provide any evidence for these land bridges? During the Ice Age!? Really, this is spectacularly silly stuff. There is fossil evidence of Australian marsupials millions of years before the Ice Age.
There’s also evidence suggesting that human travellers introduced some of the marsupials to distant lands, which can explain conundrums of very similar marsupials in different parts of the world.
Care to explain how human travellers managed to introduce marsupials to Australia when the marsupials pre-date human presence?
This whole piece is nonsense, with a mass of unsupported and half-baked notions.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Percy, posted 01-14-2012 8:09 AM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 97 by dwise1, posted 01-14-2012 6:36 PM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 102 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 1:05 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 92 of 226 (648284)
01-14-2012 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Percy
01-14-2012 8:09 AM


Re: Chuck's CMI Lies
Maybe for this discussion we should just take the ark as a given.
That's a pretty big given! I'm not sure I'm that giving a person.
Still, okay, if you think so.
Animals do migrate, land bridges such as in the Bering Straight did exist when the oceans were lower.
To Australia? To Antarctica? Those are some mighty impressive bridges.
This is what creationists like Chuck don't seem to understand. Developing a hypothesis that isn't physically impossible is the easy part, anyone can do it. Developing a hypothesis actually supported by evidence is the hard part.
Agreed. Their refusal to learn or debate doesn't help either.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Percy, posted 01-14-2012 8:09 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Percy, posted 01-14-2012 8:45 AM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 128 of 226 (648392)
01-15-2012 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Chuck77
01-15-2012 1:05 AM


Re: Chuck's CMI Lies
Hi Chuck,
Chuck77 writes:
They could have dispersed before many of the other mammalian varieties.
Granny Magda writes:
Why? How?
Chuck77 writes:
Why? Why did they disperse you mean?
I am interested in why they might be supposed to have radiated out faster than placental mammals. What reason could there be for this? What exactly would give marsupials the edge? And most importantly of all, what is the evidence for this?
Of course, you won't find any evidence that any of this is true, mostly because it's not true. There is no reason to assume that marsupials would be any better at migrating than placentals. There is no evidence that such a thing ever happened. This is an especially glaring example of a flimsy post hoc excuse. CMI appear to have pulled this one directly out of their collective ass; note the weasel words "They could have dispersed". No evidence is presented for this claim.
So basically, I want to know how this could have happened and why we should think that it did happen.
How? They walked...and humans could have played a part also.
Right, The land bridges.
Chuck, there is no way that there could have existed a land bridge between Asia and Australia. The land that would form the bridge simply isn't there. What is there instead is a deep ocean trench, an absolute barrier to the kind of bridge you refer to.
Still, if you want to use land bridges in your position, you need to provide us with at least some evidence that a land bridge existed. No such evidence exists.
I believe humans are no more than 6000 yrs old.
Well, leaving aside that fact that you're dead wrong about that, we can still say that marsupials pre-dated humans in Australia. Using only relative dating techniques (i.e. looking at the layers of rock as they appear in situ) we can still see that marsupials pre-date humans by a wide margin. If your model were correct, we ought to see human and marsupial (and all other life) appear in Australia at the same time. We don't. Instead, what we do see supports the evolutionary paradigm.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 1:05 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Boof, posted 01-16-2012 12:19 AM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(4)
Message 140 of 226 (652632)
02-15-2012 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Portillo
02-15-2012 3:55 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
Hi Portillo,
Fossils are found in sedimentary rock which is formed by flowing water.
Not entirely true. Sedimentary rock can also be formed by gradual layering in still bodies of water such as lakes or swamps. Further, there are sedimentary rocks that are formed in dry environments like deserts. These don't involve much in the way of water and certainly could not have formed as a result of any flood.
Geologists are rather better than you seem to think at recognising how different sediments formed. I suggest that you take a look at Dr A's Introduction To Geology thread for details on this.
95% of the fossil record are marine inverbrates.
That's because fossils form best in aquatic sediments, not because of any spurious flood. In fact, it gives the lie to your flood geology; if fossils exist as a result of the great flood, we would see far more terrestrial animals in the sediments than we do. We ought to see many land-based animals mixed in with the marine. The fact that we generally see marine creatures in marine sediments and freshwater fossils in freshwater sediments ought to tell you that those sediments record a living ecosystem, that layed down its fossils over a period of years, not in a single catastrophic event.
Fossils are buried in mass sediments that sometimes cover several American states! What kind of streams are we talking about?
And fossils are buried in discrete layers that place the most ancient species at the bottom and the most recent at the top. Can you tell me how a flood would do that? Can you tell me how a flood could put all the trilobites toward the borttom of the pile, but leave all the whales close to the top?
The fossil record shows us a clear story of living things changing and diverging. It does not opresent the jumble that we might reasonably expect from a flood. That's just a fantasy.
Sounds like a catastrophic extinction with lots of water.
Sounds like you need to familiarise yourself with the evidence a bit better.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Portillo, posted 02-15-2012 3:55 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 146 of 226 (652776)
02-16-2012 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Portillo
02-16-2012 1:07 AM


Re: Sedimentology, Something Else You Don't Know About
I think its (c) Im a crazy creationist.
You're clearly not crazy. You've just been lied to, that's all. The people you trusted most, your religious instructors, whoever they may be, fed you false information. They probably didn't lie to you deliberately; they probably believed it themselves, but nonetheless, they did not tell you the truth. You can see this from how this thread has progressed. You have been wrong at every turn. Worse, you haven't only been wrong, but you were completely unprepared for the true answers that you got. You had no idea about the answers you have received before this thread started. The reason you had no idea is because you have never been encouraged to understand the evolutionist/scientist position.
There is a reason for this. Creationist churches and lobby groups are not interested in the truth. They don't seek after the answers, the barely even ask the necessary questions. Instead, they have already decided what the answers are and they stick to them doggedly, even in the face of the evidence. They will never give you an accurate impression of the science side of the argument, they will only mislead you.
I can't tell you what to believe, nor would I want to, but I can tell you that your current beliefs about the world contain much that is demonstrably false. I urge you to look further into the facts about what science has taught us about the Earth and its history, because it's clear to me that much of what you think you know is wrong. You seem like an honest person to me. I can't imagine that you would be satisfied with being kept in the dark or being duped into repeating silly lies. Fortunately, you don't have to be stuck with this. Take the time to learn a bit more about geology, palaeontology and biology. Learn what they really show us. learn what scientists really say. If, after all that, you still disagree, then fine. that's your right. You would even be better placed to argue against evolution if you were equipped with a better understanding of the subject. I don't think that's what usually happens though. I think that an honest examination of the evidence will show that the world is indeed old, that fossils do indeed represent hundreds of millions of years of life and that evolution is very much real.
Like I say, it's up to you what you do and what you believe, but I think that it would be a shame to remain ignorant of these topics. They really are quite fascinating.
You might also find yourself being wrong a little less often.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Portillo, posted 02-16-2012 1:07 AM Portillo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Chuck77, posted 02-16-2012 2:37 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(5)
Message 150 of 226 (652798)
02-16-2012 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Chuck77
02-16-2012 2:37 AM


Re: Sedimentology, Something Else You Don't Know About
Wrong concerning who?
Wrong concerning reality.
We have sources that say different.
Yes, certainly you have a tiny insignificant handful of dolts, liars and lunatics. If you ever decide to engage in actual discussion or debate then you should feel free to share their hypotheses with us. For as long as you restrict yourself to sniping and childish attempts at humour, then you're nothing more than a time-waster.
Maybe it is you who are wrong? Hmmmmm...
This comment is a perfect example of the kind of childish nonsense that I'm referring to. Of course I might be wrong. It just so happens that I'm not, but for as long as you limit yourself to pathetic one-liners, you won't be taken seriously. If you think I'm wrong, then provide me with evidence that I am wrong. If you can't then kindly shut your yap.
You can't expect the entire science of geology to be knocked for six by a humourless one-liner and a little snark. You have to do better than that. As I have said to you many times, if you have a probelm with the science, then let us know exactly what it is. Pick a topic. Bring it here or to another appropriate thread. Debate it. Stand up for yourself. Go and read Dr A's Introduction To Geology thread if you're short of ideas. Find a sub-topic in there. Bring it here. Tell us where you think the scientists have got it wrong. Debate it. If you're not willing to do that then your participation here amounts to little more than trolling. Your current attitude is obnoxious and unhelpful. Please shit or get off the pot.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Chuck77, posted 02-16-2012 2:37 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 160 of 226 (669483)
07-30-2012 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Portillo
07-30-2012 4:03 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
Hi Portillo,
Trillions of beautifully preserved fossils, all over the world.
As an amateur fossil collector myself, I can tell you that this view of fossil preservation is naive. By far the majority of fossils are horribly preserved. Only a minority could be described as "beautifully preserved".
The neat fossil record chart that is seen in textbooks doesnt actually exist anywhere on the planet.
The fossil bed that I was looking through this last weekend was fairly neat. It was a shale bed containing Carboniferous plant fossils. Ferns, seed ferns, lycopsid tree roots... but no angiosperms, no flowering plants. Why would this be? One plant would be affected by flooding in much the same way as any other, so why do we not see flowering plants until about two hundred million years later? Why do we never see them in Carboniferous rocks?
You find polystrate fossils on every continent.
But only in very specific circumstances, where the sediments were lain down very rapidly. Not all strata formed over millennia, some formed much quicker. Geologists can tell the difference you know.
The real question for you is, if there was a global flood, why there are not many more polystrate tree fossils. A flood would have produced such fossils almost everywhere. Instead we see them only in a few scattered locations.
In Cumberland Bone Cave, you find massive graveyards of animals from the tropics and artics. Climate animals like bats, reptiles, birds, mastodons and mammals. From land to sea animals, the tropics and artics, all together and buried.
Care to back that up with some documentation? I'm particularly curious to see what you mean by both land and sea creatures being present.
Good question. If there was a global flood, why dont we find fossils mixed up, such as humans, horses and cows at the bottom? The question is though, do humans, horses and cows live at the bottom of the ocean?
No they don't. But trilobites do and so do modern crabs. Why do we only see trilobites before the End Permian Extinction? Why do we not see modern-looking crabs before the Jurassic? Why do we never, ever see crabs and trilobites in the same stratum? They would have shared the same habitat after all, so how could a flood be responsible for fossilising them separately?
During the Indian Ocean Tsunami, even though the lives of 250,000 people were destroyed, few animals were killed. You know why? Because the animals had a premonition of the coming catastrophe and fled for the hills. But which animals cant get out of there? The corals, sponges, hydroids, arthropods, sea anemones, crustaceans, and all the little bottom dwelling animals who cant get away.
So why do we see corals in all from the most modern deposits back to the Precambrian? And why do we only see modern crustaceans like crabs and lobsters in later deposits?
Of course, I can tell you exactly how that happens, but I'm interested to hear your version of events.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Portillo, posted 07-30-2012 4:03 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024